Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

well if an iron clad dreadnaught, or venerable dreadnaught isnt a dreadnaught for the purpose, I guess they cant ride in the drop-pod your purchased as a dedicated transport. Since that allows 1 squad of space marines, 1 thunderfire cannon, or 1 Dreadnaught

TheUNSCforces wrote:
well if an iron clad dreadnaught, or venerable dreadnaught isnt a dreadnaught for the purpose, I guess they cant ride in the drop-pod your purchased as a dedicated transport. Since that allows 1 squad of space marines, 1 thunderfire cannon, or 1 Dreadnaught

The fact that they can take a drop pod as a dedicated transport implies permission for the dreadnought to embark.
There is no such permission in the SR transport entry..
There is permission for a Dreadnought to embark.
Look through the codex.
How many codex entries are there for "Dreadnought".
Only one.

There are "Venerable Dreadnoughts" and "Ironclad Dreadnoughts", but only one "Dreadnought"
As I've mentioned before, there is precedent through several codecies and FAQ's for the difference..

 marv335 wrote:


Hotshot Lasguns are not Lasguns.

Actually, they are. I feel like you're not paying attention.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 marv335 wrote:


Hotshot Lasguns are not Lasguns.

Actually, they are. I feel like you're not paying attention.

Then why can't they use FRFSRF?

They can't because they're not Lasguns, they're Hotshot Lasguns

There is the difference.

They can't because the FAQ said so. FAQs make up new rules all the time.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 marv335 wrote:


Hotshot Lasguns are not Lasguns.

Actually, they are. I feel like you're not paying attention.

Incorrect,which is why they are excluded from the FRFSRF rule saying all *lasguns* fire additional shots when this order is given

If, as you posit, you can simply separate a composite noun into a class and subclass, then by definition they ARE lasguns and so FRFSRF! applies. Except we know it doesnt.

Almost like we've been saying all along - you dont just get to split into class and subclass, as the rules dont work that way

RAW? I don't care. RAI? Of course. Dreadnaughts are dreadnaughts.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 marv335 wrote:


Hotshot Lasguns are not Lasguns.

Actually, they are. I feel like you're not paying attention.

Incorrect,which is why they are excluded from the FRFSRF rule saying all *lasguns* fire additional shots when this order is given

If, as you posit, you can simply separate a composite noun into a class and subclass, then by definition they ARE lasguns and so FRFSRF! applies. Except we know it doesnt.

Almost like we've been saying all along - you dont just get to split into class and subclass, as the rules dont work that way

Incorrect, because the ONLY reason it doesn't work with that rule is because a FAQ says so. Otherwise it would.

A hot shot lasgun is most definitely a lasgun.

Cute. Proof of our point suddenly isnt proof.

So a Storm Bolter can use SI ammo? Oh, no, wait, it cant...another FAQ confirming that this rule is the correct way of looking at things

"Venerable Dreadnought" is a compound. Prove it is subset:set by using 40k rules. Page and para

If Venerable or Ironclad Dreadnoughts were a subset of Dreadnought, they'd be upgrades from the Dreadnought entry in the codex.
But they're not.

 marv335 wrote:
If Venerable or Ironclad Dreadnoughts were a subset of Dreadnought, they'd be upgrades from the Dreadnought entry in the codex.
But they're not.

Tacticle marines and assault marines are Space Marines, by your logic they must be upgrades from "space marine".

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
If Venerable or Ironclad Dreadnoughts were a subset of Dreadnought, they'd be upgrades from the Dreadnought entry in the codex.
But they're not.

Tacticle marines and assault marines are Space Marines, by your logic they must be upgrades from "space marine".

I think you've missed my point.

My point is that the three different types of Dreadnought are separate discrete units.
If they were a subset of "Dreadnought" then there would be one entry with upgrades for Ironclad/Venerable.

 marv335 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
If Venerable or Ironclad Dreadnoughts were a subset of Dreadnought, they'd be upgrades from the Dreadnought entry in the codex.
But they're not.

Tacticle marines and assault marines are Space Marines, by your logic they must be upgrades from "space marine".

I think you've missed my point.

My point is that the three different types of Dreadnought are separate discrete units.
If they were a subset of "Dreadnought" then there would be one entry with upgrades for Ironclad/Venerable.

I didn't miss your point I think it's wrong.
Inserting false burdens of proof into the debate isn't a winning strategy.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 marv335 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
If Venerable or Ironclad Dreadnoughts were a subset of Dreadnought, they'd be upgrades from the Dreadnought entry in the codex.
But they're not.

Tacticle marines and assault marines are Space Marines, by your logic they must be upgrades from "space marine".

I think you've missed my point.

My point is that the three different types of Dreadnought are separate discrete units.
If they were a subset of "Dreadnought" then there would be one entry with upgrades for Ironclad/Venerable.

I didn't miss your point I think it's wrong.
Inserting false burdens of proof into the debate isn't a winning strategy.

This.

How am I inserting "false burdens of proof"?

My whole point follows Occam's Razor.

The rules of the SR states it can carry a Dreadnought.

There is a unit in the Codex called "Dreanought"
The SR rules do not say Venerable Dreadnought or Ironclad Dreadnought, which are different units.
If they were all a subset of Dreadnought, they would be upgrades from the Dreadnought entry, not different units (which they are)

That is my reasoning. There is no false premise.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
If Venerable or Ironclad Dreadnoughts were a subset of Dreadnought, they'd be upgrades from the Dreadnought entry in the codex.
But they're not.

Tacticle marines and assault marines are Space Marines, by your logic they must be upgrades from "space marine".

Would be a valid point if there was a transport that could carry "one Space Marine" or anything else that refered to it in the rules in this manner.
There isn't and the point isn't valid.

The fact that it's debatable whether it's all kinds of dreadnought or not (which it has proven to be) is enough to justify the question and to need house rules or a FAQ to determine it.
The question is on the fence, and no amount of back and forth here will determine it for anyone.
Most people will, as we have seen in the poll, house rule it to be all kinds of dread.

It's not a house rule.

 marv335 wrote:
How am I inserting "false burdens of proof"?

My whole point follows Occam's Razor.

The rules of the SR states it can carry a Dreadnought.

There is a unit in the Codex called "Dreanought"
The SR rules do not say Venerable Dreadnought or Ironclad Dreadnought, which are different units.
If they were all a subset of Dreadnought, they would be upgrades from the Dreadnought entry, not different units (which they are)

That is my reasoning. There is no false premise.

The question is only this. Is the SR entry refering to the term Dreadnought, the group noun or is it to the specific unit entry. There is no other question. It is as others say completely up in the air and the only way we'll know is when we see the new rules for the generic marines SR.
Asking for proof that an Ironclad is an upgrade from the standard is adding in more proof.
You can throw occam's razor in there all you want but that has no standing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also you're quoting rules from a different pair of codices, both of which define all their walkers as dreadnoughts.
This debate can only be held once we read the new SR rules.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
It's not a house rule.

Please follow the tenets of this forum

it has been proven, over and over in this thread, that currently it is a housrule, just one people unconcsciously play.

Im all for pointless (no offence to either side) argument and the disasembling of our hobbys for the presuit of knowlege, but I do have a question reguarding it:
Would anyone actually stop someone from playing the RWI of the SR can float any dread? Im not yet sold on the SR myself but I do float two dreads in my salamanders list, so I just wanted to see where peoples honest (actual RAW withstanding) thoughts were.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
It's not a house rule.

Please follow the tenets of this forum

Disagreeing with you is a tenet of this forum?

it has been proven, over and over in this thread, that currently it is a housrule, just one people unconcsciously play.

No, that's what you claimed. Big difference. PLease follow the tenets of this forum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blacksheep8Delta wrote:
Im all for pointless (no offence to either side) argument and the disasembling of our hobbys for the presuit of knowlege, but I do have a question reguarding it:
Would anyone actually stop someone from playing the RWI of the SR can float any dread? Im not yet sold on the SR myself but I do float two dreads in my salamanders list, so I just wanted to see where peoples honest (actual RAW withstanding) thoughts were.

No, no one would actually try to say you can't put whatever dread you want in the SR. WHich makes this entire thread all the sillier.

 marv335 wrote:


Hotshot Lasguns are not Lasguns.
They have a different profile, so are not "Lasguns" for FRFSRF, and yet they have lasgun in their name.

Fluff wise pretty much every infantry unit in Codex: Chaos Space Marines is a Chaos Space Marine, but Fabius Bile may only enhance the troop unit specifically named Chaos Space Marine

There is definite precedent in various rules, codecies, and FAQ's.

The precedent, The Tyranid FAQ, Addresses models/units. It doesn't adress weapons designations. I don't have Chaos space marine codex, what does his rule specificaly say? Is it like Lysander's Bolter Drill rule, where it spells out which bolters are covered?

Using the fact that the word Dreadnought is capitalized as proof that it only covers one particular model, doesn't work as I there is no instance where the word Dreanought is not capitalized. Strange GW capitalization policy.

Being able to take a type of transport does not grant the ability to ride in said transport. A seven man squad of space marines can take a Razorback, but cannot ride in it.

An Ironclad Dreadnought is a Dreadnought. It's in the nam and they share a unit entry. A commisar and a Lord Commissar are both commisars, they share a unit entry. A Valkyrie and a Vendetta are both Valkyries, the weapons loadout changes the name. Scout sentinels and Armoured Sentinels are both Sentinels.

plenty of rules, that are are on venerable, and regular dreads alike

liek the aegis, or reinforced aegis, refer to the unit they are on as a "dreadnaught" even for venerable dreads,

GW has therefore referered to venerable dreads as simply "Dreadnaught"

Sir_P - disagreeing and failing to provide any backed up argument does violate the tenets

You have ignored evidnce to the contrary showing your argument to be false.

You should probably report me, then, rather going on about "proven this" and "proven that" and generally yelling at me for disagreeing with you.

If it has dreadnought in the title, it's a dreadnought, and it really is that simple. Most people seem quite agreed on that.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
You should probably report me, then, rather going on about "proven this" and "proven that" and generally yelling at me for disagreeing with you.

If it has dreadnought in the title, it's a dreadnought, and it really is that simple. Most people seem quite agreed on that.

I guess they have ignored me. They don't respond to my points anymore. Which are cogent.

When someone "rage quits" I consider that as having won.

 Idolator wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
You should probably report me, then, rather going on about "proven this" and "proven that" and generally yelling at me for disagreeing with you.

If it has dreadnought in the title, it's a dreadnought, and it really is that simple. Most people seem quite agreed on that.

I guess they have ignored me. They don't respond to my points anymore. Which are cogent.

When someone "rage quits" I consider that as having won.

Then you're just a troll.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
You should probably report me, then, rather going on about "proven this" and "proven that" and generally yelling at me for disagreeing with you.

If it has dreadnought in the title, it's a dreadnought, and it really is that simple. Most people seem quite agreed on that.

I guess they have ignored me. They don't respond to my points anymore. Which are cogent.

When someone "rage quits" I consider that as having won.

Then you're just a troll.

No, I'm making cogent arguments, based on the RAW. When someone(real world or on a forum) finds themselves on the losing side of an argument and cannot support their position storms off. You have to consider that your points were valid and couldn't be adequately countered.

All of my points have been RAW, and have followed the same line of reasoning from the get go. My positions and point of view hasn't changed. If sticking to your guns and reamining true to your points, while pointing out inconsistencies of anothers argument is being a troll, then I guess I fit the bill.

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong or conceding when someone's argument prevails. You can check.

No that means that arguments become a marathon event rather than a cogent analysis of what is written. This thread is a great example of that.

Nobody has proved that the SR transport rule refers to all dreadnoughts, the BA codex is written differently to the SM codex.
There is an argument to be made that dreadnought is refering to the class but that is not a solid stance.

That's why I stress, "everyone is agreed". GW rules really do often require some common sense interpretation. It really shouldn't be that way, nut they write non-technical ruleset, and that is what it is.